If passed, the Alaskans for Better Elections Initiative, measure two on the November ballot, will change the way elections are conducted at the state level. As Nov. 3 approaches, the question on many voters’ minds is: How?
The 26-page measure includes three main components: increased reporting requirements for donations to third-party organizations that have traditionally allowed donors to obscure their identities, a concept often referred to as “dark money;” “top-four” primaries, open to all voters, that advance the top four vote-getters to the general election; and ranked-choice voting in the general election.
While the increased donor-reporting requirements tend to be pretty non-controversial, the other two provisions have sparked debate.
If passed, Alaska would be the first state to employ both top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting. With these systems in place, political parties would be able to endorse a candidate, but they would no longer select their candidate through a primary election. Instead, all candidates would participate in an “open primary” in which their names appear on the same ballot. The top four vote-getters in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, would advance to the general election.
In the general election, voters would rank the four candidates. If none of the candidates received more than 50% of first-choice votes, voters who selected the least-popular candidate would have their votes reassigned to their second-choice candidates. The process would repeat until one of the candidates received more than 50% of the vote.
Unlike some measures that have appeared on the ballot in past elections, Ballot Measure 2’s supporters and opponents don’t break neatly along party lines. Supporters include former Independent Rep. Jason Grenn, Republican Rep. Louise Stutes and Democratic Rep. Tom Begich. Opponents include former Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, Planned Parenthood and former Republican governor Sean Parnell. And because Ballot Measure 2 has so many discrete parts, even some supporters find certain aspects concerning, and those who oppose it have provisions they support.
Supporters of the measure say the top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting will favor independents and moderates with the ability to work across party lines. Those who oppose it say the provisions will favor mediocrity and candidates without strong viewpoints.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), a nonpartisan organization that offers resources to state governments, proponents of ranked-choice voting tend to support it because it limits the “spoiler” effect where an independent or minor-party candidate siphons off votes from one major-party candidate, allowing another major-party candidate to win with less than 50% of the vote.
In Alaska, supporters of Ballot Measure 2 cite recent elections in which moderates or Independents were defeated as evidence that ranked-choice voting could make a difference.
In 2018, Grenn, an Independent who caucused with a multi-party coalition consisting mostly of Democrats, lost his reelection bid for State House to Republican Sara Rasmussen by 447 votes. In the same election, fringe Democratic candidate Dustin Darden drew 860 votes. Some supporters of Ballot Measure 2 have suggested that races like Grenn’s may have had a different outcome under a ranked-choice voting system.
According to NCSL, opponents tend to criticize ranked-choice voting for its ability to allow a candidate who received the most first-place votes to lose to a candidate who received more second-place votes, and for a problem known as “ballot exhaustion.”
Ballot exhaustion can occur if a voter decides to only vote for one candidate and not rank the others. If their first-choice candidate is eliminated, so is their vote. A study conducted in 2014 documented instances in ranked-choice elections where candidates won with less than 50% of the vote, as a result of enough votes being discarded due to ballot exhaustion.
When it comes to open primaries, supporters say it increases the likelihood of moderate candidates advancing to the general election while opponents say it makes it more difficult for Independents and minor-party candidates to advance, according to NCSL.
Right now, Alaska candidates unaffiliated with a political party can petition to appear on the general election ballot, a process that requires collecting signatures from voters in the district equal to 1% of the number of votes cast in the previous election. For most State House races, this ends up being between 50 and 100 signatures.
If the ballot measure passes, candidates who used to have a path to the general election via petition would instead compete in the open primary.
“Right now, the petition process is pretty low cost. Ballot Measure Two makes a first-time, independent candidate’s path to the general election much steeper if they have to put resources into competing in the primary against candidates with backing from a major political party,” said Democratic Rep. Sara Hannan, who was a high school government teacher in Juneau before she was elected to the Alaska Legislature in 2018.
For the 2020 general election, House District 6 has a five-way race—one Democrat, one Republican and three petition candidates. That couldn’t happen under the system proposed by Ballot Measure 2, Hannan said. Instead, the open primary would advance four names to the general election, and candidates with more resources, often those affiliated with the two major political parties, would likely have a better chance of advancing.
Hannan said although she likes the measure’s dark money provision, she plans to vote against it because she finds the other two components concerning. “I am a huge advocate for people engaging with democracy and increased voter participation… with that said, I don’t see Ballot Measure 2 fixing that problem.”
Democratic Sen. Jesse Kiehl, Haines’ other representative in the Alaska Legislature, said he likes two of the measure’s three components.
“I think the dark money and the open primary provisions are important, but I have mixed feelings about ranked-choice voting,” Kiehl said.
For him, an open primary is appealing because it allows voters to mix and match when it comes to party—a voter could support a Republican State Senate candidate and a Democratic gubernatorial candidate—and it prevents parties from restricting voter access to their primaries. At present, the Alaska Republican primary is only open to voters registered as Republican, nonpartisan or undeclared.
“If the state is going to pay public dollars for an election, then everybody should get to participate. If a party doesn’t want that, then they should pay for their own selection process—hold a convention, use dueling pistols to select a candidate,” Kiehl said, adding that even if Ballot Measure 2 passes in November, he has doubts about whether it will have a huge impact on Alaska’s political system.
“One of the sad truths is that how a legislative district is drawn is the biggest single factor that influences election outcomes, followed closely by who the candidates are. It would be the rarest case where ranked choice makes a difference to legislative races,” Kiehl said. Alaska legislative districts are set to be redrawn following the completion of the 2020 census.
The majority of funding for “Yes on 2 for Better Elections,” the group supporting the measure, has come from three groups: the Action Now Initiative, Unite America and Represent.Us. These groups are largely funded by a small list of wealthy, out-of-state donors.
“Defend Alaska Elections—Vote No on 2,” the group opposing the measure, organized in August and has brought in a relatively small amount of money compared to Yes on 2. Defend Alaska Elections’ top donors are conservative groups including the Alaska Republican Party, the national Republican State Leadership Committee and out-of-state donor Americans for Prosperity.
If Ballot Measure 2 passes, Alaska will be the only state with a top-four primary system. At present, two states, California and Washington, have a related primary system known as a “top-two” primary, which works the same as a top-four primary, except fewer candidates advance to the general election.
According to NCSL, ranked-choice voting was used in a number of cities in the early 1900s before it lost popularity in the 1950s, in part because single-choice votes were easier to count using machines. In recent decades, ranked-choice voting has seen increased use. Currently, 18 cities use it, including Minneapolis, San Francisco and two cities in Utah. In 2016, Maine became the first state to authorize ranked-choice voting for statewide races, although implementation was delayed until this year due to a lawsuit.